The FSUIPC mouse macro is really cool - the problem with the Duke is that it utilizes "click and drag" which it not possible with the mouse macro function.If they (Real Air) would provide a click spot functionality - then I would be a happy man.But what a lovely aircraft to hand fly!!!

Very true regarding the FSUIPC mouse macro which I have used in the past, before that I used mouse2key but you have limitations using either of those methods. I did attempt to place the default HSI and VOR1 into the panel.cfg using the 1,1 sizing and positioning them in the same manner RealAir positioned some of their hidden guages. This method did not work for adding compatibility for tuning HDG and OBS1 with the PFC unit which I had hoped it would. We'll have to wait and see if it is addressed by RealAir, odd that the OBS2 does work so some of the programming did get placed into their coding. Since I use PFC's radio stack the lack of seeing the standby frequencies change on the screen radios when I tune radio frequencies doesn't really matter but it is another item not represented in the coding.

Hello ZaneI had forgotten about the click and drag radio tuning with the realair stuffIf this Addon cannot be used with my Goflight gear, even if using tricks like the macro function of FSuipc then I will have to pass on this one.

Hi Greeneg,I think you might be making assumptions about what our 3d panels actually are, and how they work. We provide additional fixed views exactly as you see in your traditional panels, but I think you are assuming that this is not possible. It is! For more clarification why not visit the site and look at the specs and screenshots. For a more general take on the 2d/3d argument, please have a look at my post on this current thread here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=249028Best regards,Rob Young - Realair

Hi Rob, thank you for your reply. I had actually been to the Real Air Site and had actually gone through the Duke pages. The screenshots are very impressive, I must admit. However, what I was trying to express was my personal preference for the 2D cockpit, which is where I spend my time flying. I had also read through the arguments as put forth on the 2d vs VC thread, but the argument that I can make my own 2D really doesn't apply to me since I am not into extensive panel re-design. For better or worse, I am a 2D pilot.At no point, do I mean to malign the Duke as released; it certainly appears to be a quality piece of work to me.Just to try and run a cross-check on myself, I actually went to FSX, changed my settings to load the VC preferentially, and loaded my most recent aircraft, the FSD Commander 115TC, which seems to have ( to my eye) a fairly nice VC also. The bottom line result is that I also don't like flying the Commander in the VC, but I do enjoy flying it in the 2D view. My conclusion is that I am just one of those people who prefers the 2D cockpit, and since that is the case, it would be pointless for me to buy a VC only aircraft. I make no pretensions to being a real world pilot; but I have been around the hobby for quite some time, so my habits are fairly predictable. The Duke is certainly a beautiful airplane and I wish you your well deserved success with it. But, it just isn't for me.Best Regards,Ed Green

Hi Rob, thank you for your reply. I had actually been to the Real Air Site and had actually gone through the Duke pages. The screenshots are very impressive, I must admit. However, what I was trying to express was my personal preference for the 2D cockpit, which is where I spend my time flying. I had also read through the arguments as put forth on the 2d vs VC thread, but the argument that I can make my own 2D really doesn't apply to me since I am not into extensive panel re-design. For better or worse, I am a 2D pilot.At no point, do I mean to malign the Duke as released; it certainly appears to be a quality piece of work to me.Just to try and run a cross-check on myself, I actually went to FSX, changed my settings to load the VC preferentially, and loaded my most recent aircraft, the FSD Commander 115TC, which seems to have ( to my eye) a fairly nice VC also. The bottom line result is that I also don't like flying the Commander in the VC, but I do enjoy flying it in the 2D view. My conclusion is that I am just one of those people who prefers the 2D cockpit, and since that is the case, it would be pointless for me to buy a VC only aircraft. I make no pretensions to being a real world pilot; but I have been around the hobby for quite some time, so my habits are fairly predictable. The Duke is certainly a beautiful airplane and I wish you your well deserved success with it. But, it just isn't for me.Best Regards,Ed Green

Hi Ed,I much prefer 2-d panels when I fly--I like having everything in my field of view without distorting the field of view outside. But the RealAir Duke is an exception. I made a minor concession to my preference for 2-d panels by moving the eyepoint in the aircraft.cfg slightly down and slightly back. The attached screenshot shows my landing and cruise view in the VC. Moreover, RealAir's method of gauge programming has greatly enhanced the smoothness of the sim for me. Everything inside and outside is smooth, even when I crank up the sliders I find I can tolerate a lower framerate than a flight in a cockpit full of conventional gauges.I'm not here to sway you one way or another, but I thought sharing my thoughts might help.For those interested, I fly with a zoom level of .75, and here's my eyepoint adjustment:eyepoint = -7.8, -1.1, 2.40

I've been waiting for a Duchess, but a Duke suits me just fine. ;-)

what are the frame rates like? I have mid-level system Pentium duial core 2.4 GHZ, 2 G ram and 512 mb ati radeon 2600XT.....looks fabulous but i want a smooth ride....:)

Hi Rob, thank you for your reply. I had actually been to the Real Air Site and had actually gone through the Duke pages. The screenshots are very impressive, I must admit. However, what I was trying to express was my personal preference for the 2D cockpit, which is where I spend my time flying. I had also read through the arguments as put forth on the 2d vs VC thread, but the argument that I can make my own 2D really doesn't apply to me since I am not into extensive panel re-design. For better or worse, I am a 2D pilot.At no point, do I mean to malign the Duke as released; it certainly appears to be a quality piece of work to me.Just to try and run a cross-check on myself, I actually went to FSX, changed my settings to load the VC preferentially, and loaded my most recent aircraft, the FSD Commander 115TC, which seems to have ( to my eye) a fairly nice VC also. The bottom line result is that I also don't like flying the Commander in the VC, but I do enjoy flying it in the 2D view. My conclusion is that I am just one of those people who prefers the 2D cockpit, and since that is the case, it would be pointless for me to buy a VC only aircraft. I make no pretensions to being a real world pilot; but I have been around the hobby for quite some time, so my habits are fairly predictable. The Duke is certainly a beautiful airplane and I wish you your well deserved success with it. But, it just isn't for me.Best Regards,Ed Green

Are you one of the Duke developers??

what are the frame rates like? I have mid-level system Pentium duial core 2.4 GHZ, 2 G ram and 512 mb ati radeon 2600XT.....looks fabulous but i want a smooth ride....:)

Compared to the default C172 I got a 30% decrease of fps. Measured standing still on a runway.

what are the frame rates like? I have mid-level system Pentium duial core 2.4 GHZ, 2 G ram and 512 mb ati radeon 2600XT.....looks fabulous but i want a smooth ride....:)

My system is a quad core 8200 with Vista 64, a GeForce 120 (1 G Ram) and 8 G of Ram on the motherboard. I'm seeing about 25 fps with autogen maxed, aircraft shadows on self off. In the flight levels I am seeing 30 fps, which is where my lock is set at. But I feel sim is much smoother in the Duke's VC vs. a VC with standard gauges. In the screenshots forum, also take note of my Tileproxy shots. In that environment, I see 30 fps in the VC. Spot view, regardless of whether Autogen is on or off, is spot on 30 fps.Regards,John

I went for my first flight yesterday. As most RAS aircraft it is very,very good. However, I find the camera views switched by the standard FS keys to be annoyig and disruptive. Cycling through the various views to get to where you want to be could usefully be backed up by having hot click spots on the panel to go direct to the appropriate camera view.

I went for my first flight yesterday. As expected for RAS aircraft it is very,very good. However, I find the camera views switched by the standard FS keys to be annoyig and disruptive. Cycling through the various views to get to where you want to be could usefully be backed up by having hot click spots on the panel to go direct to the appropriate camera view. I also found that the course/heading indicators would not move with the standard FS keys which I have programmed onto my stick buttons and work with all other aircraft.These are minor criticisms on an otherwise delightful aircraft. I really like the sound as the engines wind up on the start of the take off role. Like most twins it is not an aircraft for sightseeing those two big nacelles certainly reduce the field of view. Pity there is no VH registerd aircraft in the standard colour schemes but that will probably be remedied by repaints.Thumbs up RAS, you've done it again :(

I'd just like to add that I also really would like to see default autopilot keyboard commands implementing in any update to the Duke, I'm really surprised you didn't include basic keyboard control for things like HDG, VS and ALT as it makes my hardware pretty much useless with the duke. Hot spots with mouse wheel interfacing would solve the problem completely as we could then use FSUIPC mouse macros.One other thing I could never understand with the mouse click and drag interface is why have you always choosen to use vertical dragging? Horizontal dragging would make more sense as you have less chance of running out of dragging area too early, especially where the heading bug is concerned, as turning the dial to the left is a pain in the butt because you always hit the base of the screen area before you get the heading you want, or at least that is usually the case for me.So please please please can we have basic SDK compliance for auto pilot/gauge control. In all other respects the Duke is yet another true masterpiece, I especially love the panel/gauge back lighting it even looks stunning in the daytime and it makes needing the dome light on in the day a thing of the past even though you still include one if you want it. Thanks for reading.

Are you one of the Duke developers??

Thank you for the compliment, but no. I was a member of Ralph Tofflemire's Team from the start of the old AETI 747-200 through the freeware release of Ready For Pushback's 747-200.

Compared to the default C172 I got a 30% decrease of fps. Measured standing still on a runway.

For all you FPS fanatics out there (and you know who you are), the Petraeus Index for the Real Air Duke is 59%, which puts it somewhere between the Aerosoft Bush Hawk (55%) and the Eaglesoft Columbia (60%). Just to compare the Flight1 Mustang has an index of 45% and the Flight1 Cessna 441 an index of 77%. The Digital Aviation Cheyenne tops the list for twin engine GAs with 166% (although the default Baron rates higher). I've always had a soft spot for the Cheyenne precisely because of this, although you don't get the nice 3D gauges as in the Duke, for instance. For the level of complexity that the Duke offers 59% is not a bad score.But, of course, as John mentioned the aircraft is very, very smooth, and if you limit your FPS to something like 20 frames per second, all of these figures will be transparent to you.

So please please please can we have basic SDK compliance for auto pilot/gauge control.

I'd also like to add my name to the request to have mouse wheel control enabled for the HSI and other gauges.RealAir have proven in other aircraft that they know how to do this, and it does not have to take away from theclick and drag implementation. At least, the drag speed has been increased compared to the previous planes, so you do not need as much space to turn the heading knob :(